[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The 120 mm guns you are talking about have very low chamber pressure in comparison to even the oldest 125 mm guns.

sauce? ive always had the impression they were about equal- if we scale for the difference in bore diameter and barrel length(ie say 7000 bars for 120mm is equivalent pressure to 6500 bars for 125mm in providing same amount of energy across different barrel lengths).
anyway the L/55 Rh. 120mm can sustain up to 7600 bars, L/44 M256 max is 7100bars, and 2a46(old as fck) has pressure limit of 6500 bars, so later models should have bit higher limit. all hopefully in standard temp or close to it.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/tank-guns-and-ammunition.39363/

Good Armata video from close distance..

Is there any info on the length of the 2A82? IMO it looks around 50 calibres long. The longer it is the better since it will increase performance of old ammo if the new ones aren't available.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there any info on the length of the 2A82? IMO it looks around 50 calibres long. The longer it is the better since it will increase performance of old ammo if the new ones aren't available.

Unfortunately no so far. You'll have to measure it yourself from available imagery.

Regular wrote:


What do You think, will Armata revive M1 TTB project?

Well the US can do whatever they want and even try to copy Armata. But then its a cool 50 years gap between Russia and the US in fielding an MBT auto-loader. And it looks like US fanboys on some sites have already started to term T-14 Armata as something inspired from M1 test project.

Hasn't the number of crew hatches been settled yet? The defense-update site claims that there is a hatch behind the driver which I haven't seen yet. Even if a hatch can possibly be accommodated in that area it can only have a semi-circular one or even less. With the turret above it, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to use it other than creating an unwanted hull opening.

This screenshot from the video at defense-update will show there is absolutely no hatch and just viewers.

Dima wrote:Hasn't the number of crew hatches been settled yet? The defense-update site claims that there is a hatch behind the driver which I haven't seen yet. Even if a hatch can possibly be accommodated in that area it can only have a semi-circular one or even less. With the turret above it, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to use it other than creating an unwanted hull opening.

This screenshot from the video at defense-update will show there is absolutely no hatch and just viewers.

That's just error.

I do hope however they fixed it.

The new armor Russia

Interview with Deputy Director General of Uralvagonzavod special equipment talked about the latest tanks

http://lenta.ru/articles/2015/05/12/khalitov/

They can enter through the same hatch, no need to weaken the hull with a 3rd hatch.

Kids always be kids, soldiers always be soldiers.

From otvaga:

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php ... 14#p554714











_________

2A82 is L52 imo.

And, no need for more, the chamber design and ammo capacity is what makes the power of a gun, not its length (as long as it's at least L50)

A too long gun is more sensitive to distortion, and, simply a problem in urbanised area or densely tree-ed area.


According to the article above... "armata is not a prototype, not a model, it's a production model"... Really? a production model with no coaxial MG and so many questionable design issue on the turret? i hope this guy is not serious (ie = knows jack)

The Armata is a production model (chassis plattform) Armata is not the tank.

cracker wrote:2A82 is L52 imo.

And, no need for more, the chamber design and ammo capacity is what makes the power of a gun, not its length (as long as it's at least L50)

A too long gun is more sensitive to distortion, and, simply a problem in urbanised area or densely tree-ed area.


According to the article above... "armata is not a prototype, not a model, it's a production model"... Really? a production model with no coaxial MG and so many questionable design issue on the turret? i hope this guy is not serious (ie = knows jack)

really? its gun barrel is 6.5 m in length? i havent read anything about L/52 too. from what little i have gathered it seemed the perceived increase in length of the gun comes from the increased length of the chamber, and it doesnt look that much longer than the old gun barrel.

and no, length matters too - the longer a gun the longer the time the propellant gases accelerate it - once it leaves there is no acceleration. though generally the majority of the acceleration happens like 1/3 to 1/2 the length of the gun depending on the pressure of the ammo ofc - as you go to the end the pressure drops.
this is why ETC is attractive, because you can maintain pressure across the gun - you can use shorter gun that is similar in performance to conventional and longer gun or use similar sized or even oversized gun barrel to improve performance.

regarding enclose spaces well tanks as a rule should steer clear of those - if they cant they generally reside in clearings.

cracker wrote:2A82 is L52 imo.

And, no need for more, the chamber design and ammo capacity is what makes the power of a gun, not its length (as long as it's at least L50)

A too long gun is more sensitive to distortion, and, simply a problem in urbanised area or densely tree-ed area.


According to the article above... "armata is not a prototype, not a model, it's a production model"... Really? a production model with no coaxial MG and so many questionable design issue on the turret? i hope this guy is not serious (ie = knows jack)

Coax right to the gun, small aperture.

Amazing pics guys!

Dima wrote:

Regular wrote:


What do You think, will Armata revive M1 TTB project?

Well the US can do whatever they want and even try to copy Armata. But then its a cool 50 years gap between Russia and the US in fielding an MBT auto-loader. And it looks like US fanboys on some sites have already started to term T-14 Armata as something inspired from M1 test project.

No, it was actually M1 TTB that was inspired by earlier Soviet projects in similar field. Only thing is that M1 TTB front of the hull looks similar to Armata, but it's because of higher profile of the hull to house 3 crewmembers.
US has plenty info about Soviet autoloaders and now they have quite decent design. Still I don't know what it has to do to prove pentagon than it's way more efficient than human loader.

collegeboy16 wrote:
sauce? ive always had the impression they were about equal- if we scale for the difference in bore diameter and barrel length(ie say 7000 bars for 120mm is equivalent pressure to 6500 bars for 125mm in providing same amount of energy across different barrel lengths).
anyway the L/55 Rh. 120mm can sustain up to 7600 bars, L/44 M256 max is 7100bars, and 2a46(old as fck) has pressure limit of 6500 bars, so later models should have bit higher limit. all hopefully in standard temp or close to it.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/tank-guns-and-ammunition.39363/

From memory all of the "non-Russian" 120 mm guns have maximum chamber pressures of much less that 6000 atm, closer to 5000 atm, and that includes all the embellishments (lie factor) also. I'll find out the correct numbers and post them.

For now please don't distribute numbers made up by forumsters. Remember your antimathematical, antiphysical weight distribution story of a few days ago. Giving a forum as your source is also interesting.

Hehe ....

"We have to do a tank shell, which burns meter steel, we will put on the" Armata "- said Rogozin.

Rogozin: Tank "Armata" is equipped with a powerful new gun charge

Werewolf wrote:The Armata is a production model (chassis plattform) Armata is not the tank.

Gosh....... we know, playing on the terms is useless, he obviously meant that the T-14 armata is the actual production model and not a sort of prototype or a fake cardboard maket (as some seem to believe regarding the turret)



[quote="KoTeMoRe"]

cracker wrote:
Coax right to the gun, small aperture.

hell no, it's impossible... or maybe the designers are monkeys who love their coax MG to shoot against the inner face of the turret jacket... In order for it to be the coax slit, it would have to be at least 2.5 times longer. There it's like what, +1-1° elevation? while the gun is probably +18-8° ?? that's ridiculous.

No, imho, they screwed up badly at integrating a coax for a freaking weird reason, and they rely entirely on the commander's MG... or, it's intentional?? even worse... who would design such a great tank without a good machinegun? And a 7.62 coax is a waste of time anyway, if they don't put at least a modified KORD or a KPVT...

KoTeMoRe wrote:

cracker wrote:2A82 is L52 imo.

And, no need for more, the chamber design and ammo capacity is what makes the power of a gun, not its length (as long as it's at least L50)

A too long gun is more sensitive to distortion, and, simply a problem in urbanised area or densely tree-ed area.


According to the article above... "armata is not a prototype, not a model, it's a production model"... Really? a production model with no coaxial MG and so many questionable design issue on the turret? i hope this guy is not serious (ie = knows jack)

Coax right to the gun, small aperture.

I still don't see it.

cracker wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The Armata is a production model (chassis plattform) Armata is not the tank.

Gosh....... we know, playing on the terms is useless, he obviously meant that the T-14 armata is the actual production model and not a sort of prototype or a fake cardboard maket (as some seem to believe regarding the turret)

KoTeMoRe wrote:

cracker wrote:
Coax right to the gun, small aperture.

hell no, it's impossible... or maybe the designers are monkeys who love their coax MG to shoot against the inner face of the turret jacket... In order for it to be the coax slit, it would have to be at least 2.5 times longer. There it's like what, +1-1° elevation? while the gun is probably +18-8° ?? that's ridiculous.

No, imho, they screwed up badly at integrating a coax for a freaking weird reason, and they rely entirely on the commander's MG... or, it's intentional?? even worse... who would design such a great tank without a good machinegun? And a 7.62 coax is a waste of time anyway, if they don't put at least a modified KORD or a KPVT...

Actually it should be wider, not longer. See most western apertures who are smaller just wider. The gun placement is awkward but there's nothing impossible there.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

cracker wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The Armata is a production model (chassis plattform) Armata is not the tank.

Gosh....... we know, playing on the terms is useless, he obviously meant that the T-14 armata is the actual production model and not a sort of prototype or a fake cardboard maket (as some seem to believe regarding the turret)

KoTeMoRe wrote:

cracker wrote:
Coax right to the gun, small aperture.

hell no, it's impossible... or maybe the designers are monkeys who love their coax MG to shoot against the inner face of the turret jacket... In order for it to be the coax slit, it would have to be at least 2.5 times longer. There it's like what, +1-1° elevation? while the gun is probably +18-8° ?? that's ridiculous.

No, imho, they screwed up badly at integrating a coax for a freaking weird reason, and they rely entirely on the commander's MG... or, it's intentional?? even worse... who would design such a great tank without a good machinegun? And a 7.62 coax is a waste of time anyway, if they don't put at least a modified KORD or a KPVT...

Actually it should be wider, not longer. See most western apertures who are smaller just wider. The gun placement is awkward but there's nothing impossible there.

Could you please post a clear picture of it. I've been looking and still can't see it

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

From memory all of the "non-Russian" 120 mm guns have maximum chamber pressures of much less that 6000 atm, closer to 5000 atm, and that includes all the embellishments (lie factor) also. I'll find out the correct numbers and post them.
.

I wonder. In Ogorkieswicz's Technology of Tank book, the Rheinmetall 120mm gun's chamber pressure is 6300 Bar (6217 atm) The 105mm L-7 however is 5100 Bar (5033 atm)

But then, those performance subject to temperature. The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius. In 21 degrees Celcius however or room temperature, the chamber pressure is less. The L-7 gun above in 21 degrees Celcius reach chamber pressure of only 4300 Bar or 4200 atm.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
From memory all of the "non-Russian" 120 mm guns have maximum chamber pressures of much less that 6000 atm, closer to 5000 atm, and that includes all the embellishments (lie factor) also. I'll find out the correct numbers and post them.

For now please don't distribute numbers made up by forumsters. Remember your antimathematical, antiphysical weight distribution story of a few days ago. Giving a forum as your source is also interesting.

what? where the road wheels are placed is not solely determined by the static weight it would support and you know it. a tank has that massive gun to fire and so is the arty vehicle - when it fires the turret ring would receive the stress and transmit it downwards.

also you are welcome to do better than my sauce .

-its amazing what a few hours of sleep can do- and holy smokes this is so bad it made me cringe when i rethinked it . but still i stand by what i said regarding differing "mass distribution" of T-90 and T-14.

Quick question about the T-15 IFV/APC. The front mounted engine is likely protected within the crew capsule correct? Would the passenger space also have a armored capsule as well? If it doesn't wouldn't that defeat the purpose behind Armata's design principle of personnel protection? I know, I know weight restrictions and ground pressure and all, but still...

magnumcromagnon wrote:The front mounted engine is likely protected within the crew capsule correct?

Every bit of info you need to make an informed, logical, rational, and correct judgement on whether or not the engine is within the protection of the crew capsule is right above.